The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that the landlord is the best judge to determine which of their rented properties should be vacated to fulfill their bona fide requirements. The Court emphasized that a tenant cannot dictate or challenge the landlord's choice of premises for eviction simply on the grounds that the landlord owns other properties.
Background of the Case
The case in question, KANHAIYA LAL ARYA VERSUS MD. EHSHAN & ORS., involved a dispute over the eviction of a tenant from a house located at Holding No. 80, New Ward No. X, Chatra Municipality, Jharkhand. The appellant, Kanhaiya Lal Arya, filed Eviction Suit No. 25/2001 against the tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide need to establish an ultrasound machine business for his two unemployed sons.
Initially, the trial court decreed the eviction based on the landlord's bona fide need, as the premises was deemed the most suitable location due to its proximity to a medical clinic and pathology center. However, the appellate court and the High Court of Jharkhand overturned the decision, rejecting the landlord's claim.
The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and N Kotiswar Singh, allowed the landlord's appeal, setting aside the previous judgments. The Court underscored that the landlord's need must be real and not merely a desire to evict the tenant.
"The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction," the Court stated.
The Supreme Court rejected the tenant's argument that the landlord could have sought eviction from other properties, affirming that once the bona fide need is established, the tenant cannot compel the landlord to seek eviction from a different property based on convenience.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies the Absence of 'Deemed Sanction' Under Section 197 CrPC
The Court found that the appellant's sons were unemployed and the landlord had demonstrated his financial capacity to invest in the ultrasound machine. Additionally, the premises in question was strategically located near medical establishments, making it the most appropriate place for the proposed business.
"It has come on record by clear finding of the court of first instance that the suit premises is the most suitable accommodation for establishing an ultrasound machine. The reason being that it is situated adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological center and is the most appropriate place for establishing any medical machine."
The argument that the sons lacked expertise in running the machine was dismissed, with the Court noting that medical devices are typically operated by hired technicians or professionals.
The tenant contended that a previous eviction suit, Eviction Suit No. 11/1981, had resulted in a compromise where the tenant was allowed to occupy three pucca rooms in perpetuity. However, the Court clarified that the compromise did not prohibit future eviction suits on different grounds.
"There is no clause in the compromise deed which stipulates that the appellant-landlord will not initiate any proceeding for eviction against the respondents-tenant in future."
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the landlord, stating that the landlord's bona fide need stood duly established. The judgment reversed the orders of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, granting eviction of the tenant.
The Court reiterated that tenants cannot challenge the landlord's choice of property for eviction once the bona fide need is proven.
Case Title: KANHAIYA LAL ARYA VERSUS MD. EHSHAN & ORS.
